PDA

View Full Version : NAFTA super highway proof




noumenon
12-04-2007, 06:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

"Additionally the system will require about 584,000 acres (2,360 kmē) of land to be purchased or acquired through the state's assertion of eminent domain. Environmentalists are concerned about the effects of such wide corridors and private land owners have expressed concerns about property rights."

How can they even get away with saying this isn't real?

hells_unicorn
12-04-2007, 06:34 PM
The same way that Lenin taught Russians that their oppression wasn't real, to quote the deceased tyrant. "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth".

malibu
12-05-2007, 09:17 AM
Also the underhanded, behind-closed-doors CAFTA hearings - which eventually became known as DR-CAFTA
(with the addition of the Dominican Republic).

With RP's early and vocal opposition to this arrangement / agreement it barely passed 217 - 215 with two absentee congressmen, yet Bush still signed it into law.

Funny Wolf Blitzer and the pundits won't talk about this-
only the lone RP votes against the overreach of government like Rosa Parks' medal.

Man from La Mancha
12-05-2007, 09:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor

"Additionally the system will require about 584,000 acres (2,360 kmē) of land to be purchased or acquired through the state's assertion of eminent domain. Environmentalists are concerned about the effects of such wide corridors and private land owners have expressed concerns about property rights."

How can they even get away with saying this isn't real?Because the super bowl is what they worship.

.

ButchHowdy
12-05-2007, 09:24 AM
Here's the Government of Alberta's OWN website:

http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType56/Production/pol306.htm

Birdman
12-05-2007, 10:48 AM
Here is the video of Ron Paul responding to this issue in the last debate:

Ron Paul Highway and CFR
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=0f5a7ca8-0690-448e-b726-f419027d8181

sharedvoice
12-05-2007, 04:18 PM
Ron Paul Responds regarding this issue to Wolf Blitzer on CNN "Late Edition"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cnWBhl7zM2Y

dc74rp
12-05-2007, 09:31 PM
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but hearing about the "Nafta Superhighway" in the Republican CNN/Youtube debate, I had to look it up.

So I see articles saying "there's no such thing as a Nafta Superhighway" and "it's a myth".........

But that contradicts official sources. Links with excerpts quoted:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/about/about.htm


As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35.

So, there is a "Nafta Superhighway", but it's I-35. There are no plans to "build" a new one. Except:


http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc_factsheet/view


In developed areas the cost of expanding our interstate system is prohibitive. Just to add one extra lane in each direction of I-35 would cost billions of tax dollars and decades of construction. By building a new parallel tolled corridor, we can build more road, build it in a fraction of the time it would take to expand I-35, build it for less money, build it with little or no tax dollars, and allow for new rail and utility lines as our state continues to grow. The state will continue to make necessary improvements and expansions to I-35, but we can't count on that aging highway to meet all of our future needs.

http://www.txdot.gov/keeptexasmovingnewsletter/04302007.html


The report showed that expanding I-35 beyond what is already planned between San Antonio and Oklahoma would cost more, impact more existing businesses and have higher consequences to the tax base than development of an alternative, parallel highway.

To meet future needs, TTC-35 is being considered as a new, alternate transportation corridor parallel to I-35. Depending on location and demand, TTC-35 could ultimately include separate lanes for cars and trucks, passenger and freight rail, and room for utility transmission. The first element to be constructed will likely be a four-lane toll road (two lanes in each direction) from San Antonio to Oklahoma.

dc74rp
12-06-2007, 04:22 AM
Wow, according to:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cnWBhl7zM2Y

"There is no such superhighway like the one he's talking about. It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else......."

-Ian Grossman, Spokesman, Federal Highway Administration

But this Executive Summary, in table S-2, calls for expansions to 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and even 20 lanes along sections of I-35 by 2025:

http://www.dot.state.ia.us/i35final.pdf

rg123
12-06-2007, 02:18 PM
Don't know if anyone noticed when it happened but the bridge in Minn. that fell down a few months ago is also exactly where it is supposed to go through over there as well.

AtomiC
12-06-2007, 09:11 PM
Don't know if anyone noticed when it happened but the bridge in Minn. that fell down a few months ago is also exactly where it is supposed to go through over there as well.

Hehehe it can't all be a coincidence can it?

Knightskye
12-06-2007, 11:25 PM
With RP's early and vocal opposition to this arrangement / agreement it barely passed 217 - 215 with two absentee congressmen, yet Bush still signed it into law.

It's not really worth mentioning the "two absentee congressmen". Then it would be a tie, and Darth Cheney, as Vice President, has the responsibility of casting the tie-breaking vote. I wonder who he would've sided with...